Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41835073›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology

Systematic review of risk prediction models for sepsis-associated brain dysfunction.

Wen Shen, Ting Li, Yun Wang, Ping Jia, Xia Zeng

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Wen ShenSchool of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Ting LiSchool of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Yun WangSchool of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Ping JiaDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Xia ZengEmergency Intensive Care Unit (EICU), Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the outcome constructs, modeling characteristics, and methodological quality of existing sepsis-associated brain dysfunction (SABD) risk prediction models, with the aim of explaining why current models are difficult to reproduce or translate into practice, and of proposing standardized directions for future research. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception to April 2025. Studies developing or validating SABD risk prediction models were included, with outcomes defined as sepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE) or sepsis-associated delirium (SAD). Model characteristics were extracted according to the CHARMS checklist, and methodological quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Results: Twelve studies involving 24 risk prediction models were included, of which four studies evaluated SAD as the outcome and eight evaluated SAE. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in outcome definitions, modeling strategies, and variable selection approaches. Calibration was reported in 10 studies, internal validation in nine studies, and both internal and external validation in one study. According to PROBAST, three studies had high applicability concerns and nine had low applicability concerns. All included studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias, predominantly in the analysis domain. Conclusion: Current risk prediction modeling studies for SAD and SAE remain exploratory, and high risk of bias together with insufficient validation limits their reliable clinical translation. Future research should adhere to the PROBAST and TRIPOD guidelines, conduct multicenter prospective studies, and standardize modeling and validation procedures. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, identifier CRD420251014680.

Indexed as

risk prediction modelsepsissepsis-associated deliriumsepsis-associated encephalopathysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41835073
PMCPMC12982069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.